If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why do NBA teams need a star?

I'll start by taking the time to write something about myself since a lot of the questions I'm going to ask in this thread come from my personal experience.

I was born in Greece circa 1990. I played basketball for 10 years (6 to 16) in my home team's academy (GS Peristeri, one of Alphonso Ford's teams). Despite injuring my knee at 18 and basically erasing my chances of playing professional basketball (I was never tall enough for my position either) I never stopped watching basketball. So, watching a lot of European basketball one thing became a clear to me as I was growing up. That a coach who can rally his team behind him and have them play unselfishly as a unit while bringing high defensive intensity can win over a star-studded team. I've watched this happen a lot of times both in the Euroleague and in the Eurobasket.

This year I started watching the NBA regularly. And I keep hearing the following phrase:

"NBA teams need the star quality"

Why is that?

Is it because a star player will attract more fans and thus provide extra cash for the franchise?

Is it because a star player will attract better FAs and thus make the franchise better?

Is it because a star player will get more star calls come playoff time?

Is it because a star player will force the opposing team's defense collapse to him thus giving his teammates higher percentage looks?

So, answer these two questions fellow PDers:

1) Why does an NBA team need a star on their roster?

2) What do teams like the Pacers, the Sixers and the Nuggets miss out by not having a star?

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

NBA playoff basketball is insanely intense. You learn every single detail about the team you're playing against. You become capable of taking away a lot of things from that team, but a star player changes that, they're able to beat your changes and adjustments. In the playoffs games are close and the last few possessions decide most games. That's when a star becomes most important. That guy will get the last bucket, or draw 3 defenders to get a lesser player a wide open shot.

If this is your first year watching NBA basketball, you'll see what I mean in a couple of months.

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

Is it because a star player will attract more fans and thus provide extra cash for the franchise?

Yes

Is it because a star player will attract better FAs and thus make the franchise better?

Yes
Is it because a star player will get more star calls come playoff time?

Is it because a star player will force the opposing team's defense collapse to him thus giving his teammates higher percentage looks?

Sometimes

So, answer these two questions fellow PDers:

1) Why does an NBA team need a star on their roster?

2) What do teams like the Pacers, the Sixers and the Nuggets miss out by not having a star?

Detroit really is the only NBA team in recent years that was able to get a championship without the ELITE star player. An Elite player also is able to get that score in crunch time. NBA ball really comes down many times to an ISO play in the final seconds. The old just get it in my hands and get out of the way is true.

You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

The Following User Says Thank You to RWB For This Useful Post:

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

Is it because a star player will get more star calls come playoff time?

Until they hold everyone to the same standards this is why. Granted there are other reasons, but I have yet to see a star player dominate like some do without help from the refs (even including Reggie).

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

The reason the stars in the NBA are more important than the stars in the Euroleague is simply because the NBA stars are much better players. They are good enough to beat whatever defensive scheme is designed to take them away.

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

The true star players are just incredible to watch night in and night out. There's a reason (beyond the hype from the NBA/ESPN/TNT) that they draw in fans in every city that show up in to play. They're just phenomenal basketball players and usually they also have some fun flashy qualities to their play on top of it all. That makes for exciting viewing if you care remotely about basketball.

I think if the Pacers had been blessed with some of these players being in Indy in their prime, our fan base would better understand and appreciate this fact. Our best players tend to be a notch below superstars / 'true stars' (like the LeBrons, Dwights, Kobes, Chris Pauls).

We only get it in bits and pieces. Reggie could make superstar shots in big games. Jamaal Tinsley was the best dribbler I've ever seen and was also a great passer. JO at one time could make some monster dunks (particularly his first year here).

But otherwise it's been more "solid play" less "spectacular plays". Danny Granger is a very good player, but not really flashy or (usually) explosive. When he is most "star-like" is when he's REALLY hot offensively, makes a terrific block (particularly when someone is driving on him), or hits a clutch bucket (which he occasionally does).

Roy Hibbert is about as unflashy as an all-star player can be.

Of our current group, the guys I see with the most "flash" are Paul George and Lance Stephenson. Paul can do a little bit of everything, and occasionally surprises you with a nice pass, and of course in open court he has some great dunks (though I always am more impressed with power dunkers than open court dunkers; the thing I always miss about Fred Jones), and he can get alley-oops, which are also fun.

But both he and Lance show flashes of potential in their one-on-one shot-creation moves. If either of them gets consistently good at hitting their self-created shots off of nice ballhandling, those are some crowd-getting moves right there.

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

An Elite player also is able to get that score in crunch time. NBA ball really comes down many times to an ISO play in the final seconds. The old just get it in my hands and get out of the way is true[/B].

They are good enough to beat whatever defensive scheme is designed to take them away.

I'd attribute both of these points in the fact that the NBA does not use Zone defense as much as it is used in European ball.

Anyway, I didn't ask the question in order to draw a comparison between American and European basketball. I fully understand that the NBA is a different league and that it takes different things in order to win here. That's why I asked this question in the first place

So, yeah I understand what most of you are saying. I still believe that a well-designed play is going to beat an ISO in crunch time. But if your coach is not a great X and O guy then you are going to need a guy that uses his creativity to take over so I do understand the other side as well.

But otherwise it's been more "solid play" less "spectacular plays". Danny Granger is a very good player, but not really flashy or (usually) explosive. When he is most "star-like" is when he's REALLY hot offensively, makes a terrific block (particularly when someone is driving on him), or hits a clutch bucket (which he occasionally does).

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

The NBA needs star players because it was "rescued" by casual fans following stars (Bird, Magic, Jordan, etc.) and therefore decided that stars were the only way to appeal to anyone. No league will ever have enough TRUE stars to go around, meaning someone gets the PR (and attendance) shaft (or gets somewhat embarrassed by having a borderline player hyped as a star who really isn't one).

I have said often that the NBA could be improved by using stars as leverage to get fans interested in their local team and the game as a whole, rather than hyping 10 guys a year and letting everything else go.

My feeling? If star players making great isolation moves to the basket is what you're in the game for, forget all this "team" garbage and form the National H-O-R-S-E Association. All the highlights, none of the pesky rules.

Does a team HAVE to have a star in order to win? One star doesn't cut it, now the saying is that you have to have 2 or maybe even 3. Essentially what that means is that you have to have some of the top players PLAYING TOGETHER AS A TEAM - which is what the d**n Heat are managing to do this year. I'd say the rules have begun skewing toward giving the star offensive players an advantage for quite some time, so there's a vicious cycle.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:

Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

I think this is a good question. I firmly believe the answer is you don't need a star to win. But you do need better players than the other team.

To elaborate: if you have a star player and the other team doesn't, obviously your top player is better than their top player, which puts you ahead of them from a skill standpoint, provided the rest of your players are roughly evenly matched. I know this is almost a tautology, but I think it's why we see teams with star players usually being the ones that win championships--including the star, their team IS simply better.

So there's nothing magical or overly complicated about having a star player...they're just really good, and they contribute significantly to making the TEAM overall better than its opposition. I firmly believe this can be overcome by building an entire team of non-stars that is stronger from top to bottom, but that's easier said than done.

P.S. Sorry I don't post here often, just don't see the games as often as I'd like to make informed comments....